Talk:Revolutionary Communist Group (UK)

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Section sizes Section size for Revolutionary Communist Group (UK) (16 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 2,436 2,436 Political ideology 26 6,037 Marxist position 2,217 2,217 Criticism of British imperialism 3,108 3,108 Criticism of racism, immigration controls and discrimination 686 686 History 13 15,269 Early years: 1970-1976 4,557 4,557 Solidarity with Ireland and South Africa: 1977-1989 4,012 4,012 Solidarity with Cuba and Palestine: 1990-present 3,231 3,231 Opposition to government spending cuts 1,886 1,886 Allegation of sexual harassment (2017) 1,570 1,570 Fight Racism! Fight Imperialism! newspaper 822 822 References 16 1,849 Footnotes 31 31 Bibliography 1,802 1,802 External links 467 467 Total 26,880 26,880

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Socialism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Politics of the United Kingdom This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Is this a mainly Jewish organization? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.46.244 (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is a ridiculous question, it is a political communist organisation. Albertobolognetti (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the same RCG that publishes a paper, "fight racism! fight imperialism!"? If so I'd like to say that they're not bad (though supporting Castro gives them a black mark) -- well, not as bad as the RCP: before the general elections FRFI said, basically, "don't vote! get organised", which is a better message than you'd get from the Trots who don't pay much attention to direct action. Its hard to tell with all these factions, though. I am reminded of the Judean People's Front in Monty Python's Life of Brian: lots of different groups with the same goal who hate each other more than they hate the Romans! -- james

Yes they publish Fight Racism! Fight Imperialism!. The article could probably do with some

NPOVing. Warofdreams

09:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• You clearly have a considerable amount of knowledge on the group, from which the article would benefit. Please be bold and make these changes! Warofdreams talk 10:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article is much more clear and more readable than when I first came across it last year. I'm still not clear on whether the RCG is a trotskyist group. The RCP(Furedi), which split from it, was trotskyist (according to the wikipedia article) and the RCG was in the IS which was also. But since the article mentions the group becoming more orthodox (the book from the 80s that you can read on their website urges solidarity with the "socialist" countries, refering to what trotskyists would have called state capitalist or degenerated workers' states) I assume this means orthodox in supporting "official communism" of the USSR. -- james

In response to james: As much as labels mean anything, the RCG does not consider itself Trotskyist. It is Marxist, and it is Leninist. -- tom

The following section, while technically true, is misleading in some ways:

"During the 1980s their most notable activity was mounting a non-stop picket of the South African embassy in London calling for the release of Nelson Mandela. This was nominally carried out by the City of London Anti-Apartheid Group, which they controlled, and was effectively disowned by the national leadership of the Anti-Apartheid Movement."

It has long been the position of the "official" communist party in Britain (the old CPGB, the Morning Star CPB and various tanky factions) that the City of London Anti-Apartheid Group was just the RCG operating in the disguise of a popular movement. This does a disservice to thousands of people who participated in City AA at all levels through the 1980s and to immense sacrifice of the Kitson family.

Although the actions and views of City of London Anti-Apartheid Group may, most of the time, have been indistinguishable from those of the RCG, it would be wrong to view it as merely an RCG front akin to the SWP's second incarnation of the Anti Nazi League. Indeed there were times when the RCG was bitterly criticised for attempting to withdraw some of its resources from City AA to support campaigns such as the Viraj Mendes asylum campaign - which was almost entirely an RCG effort.

City AA, as it was known, was run by a democratically elected committee, which at various times included members of other organisations such as WRP and the Humanist Party. There were even members of SWP who participated in the picket itself, against the instructions of their organisation.

The Non-Stop Picket of the South African Embassy, which City AA began in April 1986 followed an 86-day picket of the Embassy that had been organized by City AA's founder, Norma Kitson to draw attention to the cause of her husband David Kitson who was an SACP activist serving a 26-year sentence in South Africa for his role in the leadership of the ANC's armed wing.

On David Kitson's release, he credited the 86-day picket with saving his life. Further details are to be found in Norma Kitson's book "Where Sixpence Lives." Later the Justice for Kitson Campaign highlighted some of the shabby treatment that Kitson received from the British trade union movement and the "officials" when he refused to publically denounce City AA.

In a similar vein, Nelson Mandela, after his release, stood on a balcony of the South African Embassy and told the crowd that filled Trafalgar Square that the protests of the picket in front of the London Embassy was the most vociferous of all the anti-apartheid protests anywhere in the world. The ironic thing was that he was flanked on that balcony by officials of the British Anti-Apartheid Movement who had taken every possible action to prevent those protests from taking place.

The ideological heirs of Ken Gill would like to dismiss City AA as an RCG front and airbrush it from history. I believe it would be helpful to develop a wiki article that more fully tells the story of City AA and the non-RCG figures such as myself who served in its leadership.

Chris adds: I was involved in the City AA group as well, and while it's true that only a minority of members were in the RCG, the RCG and Norma Kitson effectively controlled it. For example the decision to stop the David Kitson picket after 86 days was clearly made by the RCG outside of the decision-making structure of City AA and pretty much presented as a fait accompli and pushed through against opposition. I don't recall there being any WRP or Humanist Party members in the group, although they did show up on the picket now and again. Those of us who weren't in the RCG or independent tended to be in the Labour Party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.13.113 (talk) 11:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC) Incidentally, I always regarded the RGC as stalinist. They were violenntly opposed to Solidarnosc, they described the USSR as socialist without qualification and there was no discernible difference politically between them and Norma Kitson, who was an old-style tankie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.13.113 (talk) 11:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a democratic meeting held every week in City AA and decisions were made as a result of discussion and votes were taken. Chris simply objects to the Revolutionary Communist Group putting its views to the meetings and having those views accepted after a democratic decision by all members present at the meeting. He admits that only a minority of members were in the RCG but seems to be arguing that it was unfair that their arguments were accepted by the majority. Yet Chris is/was a member of a totally undemocratic racist, imperialist party - the Labour Party. His view is typical of the sectarianism of the undemocratic left.

The RCG is not a Stalinist organisation. This name calling is typical of those who cannot really construct a reasonable argument against the RCG's political standpoint. The RCG opposed Solidarnosc because Solidarnosc wanted to introduce a neo liberal market economy into Poland - something it eventually did when it became part of the government. See the article Poland: Solidarity and counter-revolution, Fight Racism! Fight Imperialism! 15 January 1982, reprinted in The Legacy of the Bolshevik Revolution Larkin Publications 1992 (still available). The RCG describes the USSR as socialist. To say this is 'without qualification' is meaningless jargon. To call Norma Kitson names such as 'old-style tankie' is a bankrupt and a dismissive insult against a women who was an activist and above all a brilliant organiser against apartheid and for the democratic rights of all South Africans (David). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.82.241 (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Lebanon there is a political group with the same name, who has an article on Wikipedia Revolutionary Communist Group (Lebanon). I find it obvious that as long as the Revolutionary Communist Group not is a disamb page it must have a link on the top of the article. However, some anon user removes this link. Is there any valid reasoning behind this? Bertilvidet 19:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In short, no, there is no valid reason for this. --Soman 07:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a disamb page, though. There is also the GCR from Colombia. --Soman 07:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warofdreams insists on calling the RCG Trotskyist. Some groups with a similar name are clearly Trotskyist but the RCG broke with Trotskyism some time in the mid to late 1970s. I know this because I was a founder member of the RCG and still am a member. It is therefore important to be accurate on this matter and not put the Revolutionary Communist Group (UK) in the category Trotskyist Organisations.

Please read what I write - the group was originally Trotskyist, hence the category. It no longer is - there is no dispute here! Warofdreams talk 00:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The RCG has been in existence since March 1974, that is, for over 32 years. It broke with any vestiges of Trotskyism a few years after its founding conference. So for nearly 30 years the RCG has not had any practical or theoretical links with Trotskyism. Putting the RCG in the category Trotskyist organisations is therefore perverse.

If there was a category for former Trotskyist groups, this article would be in it. There isn't, so it is in the only suitable category to include its original ideology. The change is quite clearly explained in the article. I really don't understand why you disagree with this. Warofdreams talk 17:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The categorisation 'Trotskyist' leads today to clearly defined positions on crucial issues such as state capitalism, permanent revolution and the character of opportunism. We hold to the classical Marxist and Leninist positions on all these issues and differ from all Trotskyist groups in the UK on these issues. We belong to a definite political trend and this is important for understanding our politics. After we were expelled from the SWP our politics were clearly undefined and underdeveloped but very quickly we moved in a revolutionary direction, re our position on Ireland, totally opposed to the position of all the main Trotskyist groups. The SWP, after all, supported British troops going into Ireland in 1969. So really there are no reasons to put us in the Trotskyist's organisation category unless you are being stubborn and perverse.

There are a lot of irrelevant arguments here. There seems to be one key one - are you, or are you not claiming that the RCG was never Trotskyist? If it never were (and you seem to be in two minds on whether you are claiming this), then the category would be inappropriate (and the article would need to be changed). If it was initially, then the category is entirely appropriate. As I keep saying, your endless statements of the group's more recent politics are still irrelevant. Warofdreams talk 00:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warofdreams logic is absurd. The RCG is not a Trotskyist organisation. It cannot be put in the category Trotskyist organisation because it is not one. That Warofdreams wishes to put us in that category because the RCG took a few years to clarify its political standpoint having emerged from an organisation which claimed to be Trotskyist makes no sense. There is no category 'former' Trotskyist organisations because such a category would be of no real practical use. Why do we insist on not being in the category Trotskyist organisation? The answer is simple because for most political activists it is a political categorisation which does not apply to the RCG. So Warofdreams should give everyone a break and cease insisting that the RCG be put in a category where it does not belong.

It seems that you misunderstand the idea of categories. They do not just include things which currently meet a particular description, but also historical examples. For example, Category:Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom includes every Prime Minister, even though almost all of them ceased to be Prime Minister before their death. The article on the Revolutionary Socialist Party (UK) is in both the Trotskyist category, and the De Leonist category, because the party changed its ideology. The same applies here.

In addition, do not use edit summaries such as "Warofdreams is now beyond rationality as explained on discussion page. Clearly if you continue the category will just be deleated by someone from the RCG." Personal attacks are not permitted, and threats to engage in disruptive behaviour will get you banned. I have given you many chances to engage in constructive discussion. Please do so. Warofdreams talk 20:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have engaged in constructive discussion. Please do not patronise me because of your superior situation in relation to Wikipedia. The RCG exists and those reading anything about us would make assumptions about our present politics if we are included in Trotskist organisations. If the Revolutionary Socialist Party UK is prepared to see itself in two categories that is fine. The RCG rejects totally the categorisation Trotskyist. Why is Warofdreams insisting that the RCG is in a category which it totally rejects and after it has clearly justified this rejection? The issue of Prime Ministers is a red herring. What matters is the party they belong to. The RCG is active in UK politics and how it is seen by others involved in politics in the UK is important. Warofdreams intervention can only be regarded as sectarian. Does Wikipedia allow sectarian interventions and who decides whether interventions are disruptive or sectarian? Finally I want to make it clear that the origins of an organisation, its initial period of developing its politics does not determine its existing politcal categorisation. This seems a reasonable standpoint. If Wikipedia rejects this then it ought to reconsider its position.

The article is clear on your present politics. As I have said repeatedly, this article does not and should not claim that the RCG is currently Trotskyist. The reason for the category is clear from the article. Organisations do not control their Wikipedia articles, so what the RCG (or any surviving member of the RSP) would like to see included is not crucial. I will leave aside the curious assertion that categorising this article, as I see it correctly, can only be seen as sectarian or that by attempting to explain my reasoning when you have stated that you cannot follow it that I am being patronising. Warofdreams talk 02:16, 12 November 2006

(UTC)

I do not accept your reasoning and neither would any person attempting to create a reasonably objective page. Is it possible to get some adjudication on this matter that involves neither myself nor you? Until this happens I can only remove the categorisation.

Someone keeps reverting this. To explain: the article is clearly start class rather than stub or C class. And it is low importance because the party receives less than 5% support in general elections. If the mystery reverter has a different view, then I suggest they try and make their case here, rather than simply being an anonymous vandal. --IdiotSavant (talk) 05:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The RCG thinks elections are fraudulent (see FRFI 214/215). To say the RCG has less than 5% of the vote in such elections makes no sense as a criteria for assessing the discussion article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.179.140 (talk) 19:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is, sadly, a very weak article. It relies almost entirely on self-published sources. Recent changes by Haldraper at least make it more readable, in addition to removing a few completely unsourced statements, and note that some opinions are those of the group, and remove a little trivia (e.g. the twenty-fifth anniversary of the newspaper). Unfortunately, an anon user has applied blanket reversions. I hope that the anon editor is not connected with the party; if they are, they should read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Either way, any serious objections to the improvements need to be made on this talk page, with no further reversions. Warofdreams talk 21:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warofdreams is in no position to edit the RCG Wikipedia page as he has already showed his colours in the past. See above re the categorisation of the RCG as Trotskyist, which he insisted on for a long period despite this being counter-factual. Get someone else from the administation team of Wikipedia to sort this out. That Warofdreams thinks that it is trivia to acknowledge the 25th anniversary of a anti-imperialist, communist newspaper in the oldest imperialist country illustrates his lack of fitness to be an administrator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.49.240 (talk) 12:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask why warofdreams sees fit to continually strip the article of important points so that it adheres to his own view of the RCG - I believe constant edits which damage an article are considered vandalism! This isn't just vandalism, but distorts the positions and arguments of the group the article is about - in an online encyclopedia, this is exactly the opposite of what should be being achieved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.148.161 (talk) 13:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for discussing this. Please refrain from personal attacks. You will notice that the recent improvements are not my work, and I don't have any particular view of the group; I just want to see a neutral, more readable and better-referenced article. Which specific points are being distorted? Do you have references for these? If so, that's great, and can be part of improving the article. Warofdreams talk 13:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with user Warofdreams that you 'do not have an particular view of the group'. You do not live in a vacuum in society. Obviously far from that, according to your blog which you link to from your wikipedia user page you refer to the British SWP as a 'far left group'. Also on this blog you have written about 'capitalism' and 'the BNP'. This shows you obviously have personal interests and 'views'. Wikipedia is presented as neutral by some but we all know that history is in fact an interpretation of events by the historian. Yours and others' consistent editing of this article shows obvious discontent with the group and some attempt to vandalise the page despite your 'prestigious' position as a wikipedia administrator, whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. We have been working hard to improve this article and would thoroughly appreciate it if you and others ceased from attempts to distort, remove and edit factual information being in-putted about this organisation and presented to the general public. --Albertobolognetti (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pitching in. I'm not sure who this "we" are, who have apparently been working on the article, but you'll note that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and not limited to a small group of contributors. Given your edits, I wonder if you may be connected with this group - if so, see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. It would also be useful to look at the information on vandalism, to see the difference between that, and the kind of contributions which other editors have made to this article. Either way, please desist from personal attacks, and engage in some discussion about any specific problems you have with the improved version of the article. Warofdreams talk 16:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"we" refers to people who are against the barrage of politically motivated changes and censorship that have been made by a number of uses which "you" (plural) seem to be defending. I'm sure you can understand this is clearly not about personal attacks. I do not take onto the internet or public forums to 'attack' people. I know what a 'troll' is and this is not my role. I have looked at the documents you have offered me to read. Firstly, you can call these 'rules' but I do not for one minute believe that wikipedia has been constructed according to these 'rules'. However, secondly, I am not violating any of these 'rules' either. Thirdly, if you think there is such thing as a 'neutral' user who does not have some form of 'conflict of interest' with what is termed as being in the greater interest of the 'general public' you are seriously mislead. You obviously are using these 'rules' to try and strangulate attempts to put build a good quality public domain article page of this political group. I believe you are including too much personal and political interest in your censorship and that which you are defending. This will not be acceptable. I will attempt to create a new sub heading here to satisfy your thirst to moderate this page where we can clearly and openly discuss the facts which are believed to have been censored from this page. I hope we can resolve this issue in the interests of the general public, and the movement as a whole. Albertobolognetti (talk) 11:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re: Vandalism, and I quote from the link you offered- "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Clearly, in the understanding which I have explained, your unexplainable attempts to make constant reversions and changes to other users' input surely compromises the integrity of this article. You are doing so without proper explanation but clearly abusing your authority and known 'reputation'. Albertobolognetti (talk) 12:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[moved last comment to new section] Albertobolognetti (talk) 12:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]